Atheist Action Halts Calif. Nativity Display; Churches Go to Court

Bodhisattva said:

I don't see what the problem is with these ****ing atheists. I am an agnostic atheist and I could care less. I think that nativity scenes and Christmas is fun and doesn't need to have anything to do with religion. It is about expressing love and kindness to people and surely atheists are capable of this too. Zealous atheists are such assholes. Find something better to do.

Click to expand...

An agnostic atheist is like a Gay Republican. We all know they exist, however the two terms are contradictory. Atheism is the position that there is no such thing as supernatural activity a-la gods, fairies, elves etc. Theism is the position that those things do exist. Agnostics claim the position of 'I don't know'. That said, you can't say you don't know, and then somehow support the ONE atheistic claim that those things don't exist. You're simply an agnostic, a theist or an atheist.

roguenuke said:

I think this is bull. I believe they are lumping together basically anyone who claims a religion at all, even if they really don't practice their religion or believe some things that are different.

I'm not atheist, but I also do not claim an actual religion. I have my own beliefs. I donated thousands every year to charity while I was single in the Navy. And I gave more money to my family. More than many of my peers, even the religious ones, by far. Even more than those making more than me. I consider charity to be a very good thing to do.

But, I am also not trying to buy my way into any positive afterlife. I honestly believe there are some who do. In fact, I can't think of any other reason for tithing. It isn't always voluntary, in particular for Mormons, who you mentioned earlier.

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/tithes-and-offerings?lang=eng

Note this:



In order to be a practicing Mormon, they must tithe. It isn't charity. It is like paying to be in a club, only it a religion.

Click to expand...

No one is saying that non-religious people aren't caring or giving what I am saying is that studies show time and time again that in the US religious people tend to contribute more to non-profit charitable organizations than secular folk. I posted links, feel free to look them over.

As for your comments on the Mormons, the motives for why people give are going to change depending on the individual person, you can go ahead and assume that they give for selfish reasons all that you want but I would advise against it, that's a lot of people you don't know and are willing to make assumptions about.

Objective-J said:

BEING SUPER LATE to this thread and im going to scan through im not reading it all but im sure this question was asked.


why is this the atheists fault?

seems to be its the vandals fault who ever they were :shrug:

Click to expand...

I and a lot of others were saying that Vix (the atheist who organized others to try to invade a religious tradition) was being a dick. It wasn't atheists fault and the religious people trying to sue are being ridiculous since the only legal action that could be taken is by those whose booths were vandalized.

Cephus said:

You are aware that includes religious tithing given to their churches, used for operating expenses, right? When you get a bunch of people who are convinced that their imaginary friend in the sky wants 10% of their income (or whatever percentage), of course you're going to get a lot of people giving! It's a guilt trip!

Click to expand...

Not all Christian Churches require it and everyone has their own reasons for why they give. Suffice it to say it does not take away from the fact that religious people give more to charities than secular people even though secular people were found to make more money (it's all in the last source I cited).

Monserrat said:

I and a lot of others were saying that Vix (the atheist who organized others to try to invade a religious tradition) was being a dick. It wasn't atheists fault and the religious people trying to sue are being ridiculous since the only legal action that could be taken is by those whose booths were vandalized.

Click to expand...

not sure about about him being a dick simply based off of some of the signs i saw (happy holidays :shrug but yes, theres definitely a potential for the "jerk factor" to be implied.

and I also agree the people trying to sue are being ridiculous and its a losing battle.

Monserrat said:

Not all Christian Churches require it and everyone has their own reasons for why they give. Suffice it to say it does not take away from the fact that religious people give more to charities than secular people even though secular people were found to make more money (it's all in the last source I cited).

Click to expand...

In general, Christians believe we should help each other while secularists believe that is the responsibility of the government, a Santa Claus role many politicians are willing to play.

Would you agree?

Grant said:

In general, Christians believe we should help each other while secularists believe that is the responsibility of the government, a Santa Claus role many politicians are willing to play.

Would you agree?

Click to expand...

No. People believe in helping each other. Some Christians believe they should help each other because it is the right thing to do, others believe it is done to avoid a negative afterlife or achieve a positive one. Some non-Christians believe they should help other because it is the right thing to do, others don't believe they need to help. Some Christians believe they only have to help so much, if at all, and that is enough, others give as much as they are able and sometimes more. Some non-Christians help others as much as they are able and sometimes more.

Good will and charity and helping people does not require adherence to a religion. It merely requires the attitude that helping others is the right thing to do.

roguenuke said:

No. People believe in helping each other. Some Christians believe they should help each other because it is the right thing to do, others believe it is done to avoid a negative afterlife or achieve a positive one. Some non-Christians believe they should help other because it is the right thing to do, others don't believe they need to help. Some Christians believe they only have to help so much, if at all, and that is enough, others give as much as they are able and sometimes more. Some non-Christians help others as much as they are able and sometimes more.

Good will and charity and helping people does not require adherence to a religion. It merely requires the attitude that helping others is the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

It seems though, that whatever their motives, Christians tend to help more. Would that be right?

Monserrat said:

No one is saying that non-religious people aren't caring or giving what I am saying is that studies show time and time again that in the US religious people tend to contribute more to non-profit charitable organizations than secular folk. I posted links, feel free to look them over.

As for your comments on the Mormons, the motives for why people give are going to change depending on the individual person, you can go ahead and assume that they give for selfish reasons all that you want but I would advise against it, that's a lot of people you don't know and are willing to make assumptions about.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of nice Mormons out there. And I believe many are really nice people. Those in charge of the Mormon church though are not nice. And I'm sorry, but there is no way that I can consider tithing charity when most of it goes to church purposes, such as political campaigns or mission work (missions for Mormons are mainly about trying to convert people to their religion, that isn't charity, that is church work).

If you could break down exactly what each person is giving to, then you could prove this. But not all non-profits are the same. There are plenty of non-profits for political purposes. There was one in the CFC book that was working to get people out of porn. And not all people give just money. Many also give their time. And some also help their families out instead of allowing them to become another statistic.

I feel it is wrong though to come up and say that Christians or even religious automatically give more just because they are Christians. Especially not when many, such as the Mormon religious, would include their tithings as giving to charity, yet that is an obligation for them and not all that money is going to help others.

There is definitely a question of why they are giving when they are a) required to give, and b) a strong point in their religion says that not giving can lead to a negative afterlife.

roguenuke said:

There are a lot of nice Mormons out there. And I believe many are really nice people. Those in charge of the Mormon church though are not nice. And I'm sorry, but there is no way that I can consider tithing charity when most of it goes to church purposes, such as political campaigns or mission work (missions for Mormons are mainly about trying to convert people to their religion, that isn't charity, that is church work).

If you could break down exactly what each person is giving to, then you could prove this. But not all non-profits are the same. There are plenty of non-profits for political purposes. There was one in the CFC book that was working to get people out of porn. And not all people give just money. Many also give their time. And some also help their families out instead of allowing them to become another statistic.

I feel it is wrong though to come up and say that Christians or even religious automatically give more just because they are Christians. Especially not when many, such as the Mormon religious, would include their tithings as giving to charity, yet that is an obligation for them and not all that money is going to help others.

There is definitely a question of why they are giving when they are a) required to give, and b) a strong point in their religion says that not giving can lead to a negative afterlife.

Click to expand...

But they know when they are part of this religion, as are all parts of the Christian religion, that Charity is a part of it. Otherwise they could leave.

Grant said:

But they know when they are part of this religion, as are all parts of the Christian religion, that Charity is a part of it. Otherwise they could leave.

Click to expand...

Some people are scared to leave their religions because they honestly believe that the religion knows the way to a positive afterlife. They believe what the religion they believe in is what will get them to the best afterlife possible.

roguenuke said:

On the contrary, "Christ" is the title of the messiah, so had the people believed that someone other than Jesus were the Messiah and a religion built around that person, they would still be called "Christians" and the holiday would still likely be "Christmas" that celebrated his/her birth. Plus, since it is pretty well established that Jesus most likely was not actually born on Dec. 25th, or even December at all, but rather as others have mentioned, it was chosen to include more people and more easily convert people, it is not unthinkable to believe that we would still have Christmas during the same season as the winter solstice and Saturnalia, because the entire point was to try to combine those holidays to join more people.

Click to expand...

That's a lot of conjecture.

I'm well aware that Christ is a title which I alluded to in my post, there were actually a lot of Christ figures during that time period but to assume that any other tradition claiming a christ would be able to build enough rep and followers to make any significant impact is a bit of a stretch and a lot of supposition since they didn't in fact do so, they all sort of fizzled out. An even larger stretch would be to assume that we would still have christmas since the mass of christ was a celebration of the Catholic Church and the Catholic church wouldn't be in existence without the development of early Christianity based on that one particular "Christ" (and a lot of other factors).

There are a lot of different dates proposed throughout history for when Jesus was born, the end of Dec. into January was one of those proposed dates. Sextus Julius Africanus placed the date of Christs birth at the 25th of dec (or thereabouts) in his chronographiai before 221 AD (he actually talks about the conception date but once you have that it's all about biology and the math plus or minus a month). Cultural integration/assimilation has a lot to do with the final date settled on (which actually happened in different time periods in different cultures in the world with some still not on the same page). That fact in and of itself shows things to be much more complicated than simply saying the church was just co-opting the celebration of Saturnalia. Even more to that point the early christians rather consistently tried to distance themselves from the pagans, which is one reason some early christian theologians like Origen was not in favor of celebrating Christs birth (to say the least) he considered it a pagan practice and didn't want anything to do with it.

I could keep rambling on and on about this, I could write an essay...I did actually write one on semi-related subject matter back in college though it had more to do with Mithra but I hope you and others get the point that it's kind of redundant and not to mention a complete oversimplification of cultures/history surrounding the proposed dates and later settled upon dates of the birth of Christ.

And traditions are not sacred to me. Other people have their traditions too. I saw the pics of the nativity scene that was put it. It looked pretty flashy and cheap. It probably would benefit greatly by being put on private property, rather than the public park because people tend to care more when it is on their property or when a display might look bad. I am a firm believer in parks should be for playing and walking and picnics, not signs and displays that stay up for a month or more just for people to gawk at. Put those things on your own property.

Click to expand...

Everybody has their own traditions especially this time of the year I however wouldn't go out of my way to try to invade anyone else's. It's too bad the rest of the world doesn't have that sort of live and let live in peace mentality otherwise we all might actually get along.

Objective-J said:

not sure about about him being a dick simply based off of some of the signs i saw (happy holidays :shrug but yes, theres definitely a potential for the "jerk factor" to be implied.

and I also agree the people trying to sue are being ridiculous and its a losing battle.

Click to expand...

Some of the signs were fine others not so much, I didn't really see anything that I would personally give a **** about but the fact that these people had been celebrating at that park for 60 years with their families and loved ones and that somehow Vix saw a need to try to wedge himself in there to get his personal message out that he saw Jesus as a myth (one of the signs) was just unnecessary and the reason why I can say with some measure of confidence that he was just being a dick.

Grant said:

In general, Christians believe we should help each other while secularists believe that is the responsibility of the government, a Santa Claus role many politicians are willing to play.

Would you agree?

Click to expand...

Yes. They are two different means to an end. I don't think any one group is necessarily more caring than the other I think they both have different ways of going about it.

Monserrat said:

That's a lot of conjecture.

I'm well aware that Christ is a title which I alluded to in my post, there were actually a lot of Christ figures during that time period but to assume that any other tradition claiming a christ would be able to build enough rep and followers to make any significant impact is a bit of a stretch and a lot of supposition since they didn't in fact do so, they all sort of fizzled out. An even larger stretch would be to assume that we would still have christmas since the mass of christ was a celebration of the Catholic Church and the Catholic church wouldn't be in existence without the development of early Christianity based on that one particular "Christ" (and a lot of other factors).

There are a lot of different dates proposed throughout history for when Jesus was born, the end of Dec. into January was one of those proposed dates. Sextus Julius Africanus placed the date of Christs birth at the 25th of dec (or thereabouts) in his chronographiai before 221 AD (he actually talks about the conception date but once you have that it's all about biology and the math plus or minus a month). Cultural integration/assimilation has a lot to do with the final date settled on (which actually happened in different time periods in different cultures in the world with some still not on the same page). That fact in and of itself shows things to be much more complicated than simply saying the church was just co-opting the celebration of Saturnalia. Even more to that point the early christians rather consistently tried to distance themselves from the pagans, which is one reason some early christian theologians like Origen was not in favor of celebrating Christs birth (to say the least) he considered it a pagan practice and didn't want anything to do with it.

I could keep rambling on and on about this, I could write an essay...I did actually write one on semi-related subject matter back in college though it had more to do with Mithra but I hope you and others get the point that it's kind of redundant and not to mention a complete oversimplification of cultures/history surrounding the proposed dates and later settled upon dates of the birth of Christ.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that those who put together the first cornerstones of the Christian religion wouldn't do so around someone else if they felt they could gain power in doing so. I don't believe this. I think many Christians have good intentions. I also believe there were a lot of higher ups in the church that were more than happy to manipulate circumstances for their own power gains. If not for Christ, it is more than likely that at least some of those earlier groups would have chosen someone. It isn't inconceivable that it could have happened.

And some may not have agreed with celebrating Christmas because of the Pagan holiday, but many did and did so on purpose. They saw an advantage to it.

It is not likely that Jesus's birth would have been in either December or January. The weather and the census are two things that suggest it is not likely. It is possible, as is anything. It just honestly could have been any time during the year.

We just can't know either way, but it isnt hard to imagine that there could still be a Christmas without Jesus. But it is almost certain that there would still be holiday celebrations of some sort during this season. People had found ways to celebrate during this time of year for many centuries prior to Jesus's birth. It just doesn't take much to imagine that they would continue to celebrate something because people like to celebrate things and what better time than around the longest day of the year?

Monserrat said:

Everybody has their own traditions especially this time of the year I however wouldn't go out of my way to try to invade anyone else's. It's too bad the rest of the world doesn't have that sort of live and let live in peace mentality otherwise we all might actually get along.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't interrupt other people's celebrations either. But I don't blame people who do so for something that is not their fault. No matter how much you don't like their actions, they did nothing that caused the church to not be able to put up their displays by putting up their own displays. It was something that was caused by the vandals but likely would have happened eventually anyway. But that is life, things change, people adapt. It really is probably better. Now more of the area can get "displays" for the season (hopefully with positive messages). Maybe there can be more of them with a greater level of effort put into them. With a little effort and care and less whining, they could make some pretty nice displays across the city to put up for the holidays and the park can be used for more park-like activities, such as playing in.

Cephus said:

The problem is, the passage in question, Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads", is very clear. If X then Y. There's no question what the passage means, nor can Christians simply pretend Leviticus doesn't apply anymore, Jesus supposedly said in Matthew 5:18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

So why aren't more Christians out killing gays left and right? Because Christianity and other religious have been moderated by secular society in the western world, they are not allowed to get away with what their holy book calls for so they've changed their beliefs to reflect their inability to do what the Bible calls for.

Click to expand...

You're doing what the homophobic zealots do -- taking the Bible as a static unchanging package of contradictory things, rather than a record of how god's relationship with man changed over time. Look at the very beginning, then the commandments and such, then Jesus and tell me that that relationship -- and the LAW! -- didn't change. You can't. God is, as portrayed in the Bible, timeless -- but his relationship to man had to evolve over time because man isn't timeless.

Monserrat said:

Not all Christian Churches require it and everyone has their own reasons for why they give. Suffice it to say it does not take away from the fact that religious people give more to charities than secular people even though secular people were found to make more money (it's all in the last source I cited).

Click to expand...

Regardless, it proves they are counting money as charitable giving which simply is not charitable and does not go to help people. Further, even if people are not indoctrinated into giving a portion of their income to the church, which may do *NOTHING* charitable with it, when the plate gets passed around, peer pressure pushes most people to stick something into it regardless of their desire to do something charitable. It just proves that these studies are flawed and therefore, their conclusions highly questionable.

TacticalEvilDan said:

You're doing what the homophobic zealots do -- taking the Bible as a static unchanging package of contradictory things, rather than a record of how god's relationship with man changed over time. Look at the very beginning, then the commandments and such, then Jesus and tell me that that relationship -- and the LAW! -- didn't change. You can't. God is, as portrayed in the Bible, timeless -- but his relationship to man had to evolve over time because man isn't timeless.

Click to expand...

No, I'm looking at what the Bible actually says instead of what it can be twisted to say by people who cannot bring themselves to stomach what it actually says. Find me a place in the New Testament where Jesus said he changed his mind and homosexuality is actually okay. Find me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus said slavery was evil. You're desperately trying to justify ignoring things when the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say.

Just read the damn book.

Cephus said:

No, I'm looking at what the Bible actually says instead of what it can be twisted to say by people who cannot bring themselves to stomach what it actually says. Find me a place in the New Testament where Jesus said he changed his mind and homosexuality is actually okay. Find me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus said slavery was evil. You're desperately trying to justify ignoring things when the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say.

Just read the damn book.

Click to expand...

I agree - read the damn(ed) book

Where in the New Testament is Jesus quoted as saying anything about homosexuality, either negative or positive?

Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about slavery and whether was he for it or against?


In many circles, silence, when confronted with evil indicates support.

Somerville said:

I agree - read the damn(ed) book

Where in the New Testament is Jesus quoted as saying anything about homosexuality, either negative or positive?

Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about slavery and whether was he for it or against?


In many circles, silence, when confronted with evil indicates support.

Click to expand...

Is that your way of saying you support slavery?

Somerville said:

I agree - read the damn(ed) book

Where in the New Testament is Jesus quoted as saying anything about homosexuality, either negative or positive?

Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about slavery and whether was he for it or against?


In many circles, silence, when confronted with evil indicates support.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

Is that your way of saying you support slavery?

Click to expand...

Does anyone else see the connection between what I posted and what Grant has posted? - 'cause I sure don't

Cephus said:

Regardless, it proves they are counting money as charitable giving which simply is not charitable and does not go to help people. Further, even if people are not indoctrinated into giving a portion of their income to the church, which may do *NOTHING* charitable with it, when the plate gets passed around, peer pressure pushes most people to stick something into it regardless of their desire to do something charitable. It just proves that these studies are flawed and therefore, their conclusions highly questionable.

Click to expand...

They're counting charitable donations.

More from source I quoted earlier:

Some charge that religious people contribute mainly to their own congregations, so in a sense they are giving charity to themselves. As it turns out, though, religious Americans do not limit their philanthropy to their own congregations or even to religious causes more generally.

And even if they did, local congregations are often on the front lines of providing charitable services to the poor and needy through food pantries, soup kitchens and shelters. Campbell and Putnam: Charity's Religious Edge - WSJ.com

Click to expand...

Every study has their drawbacks and it's important to look at that but I get the feeling that you don't really care about anything they say unless it paints religious (or maybe just christian) people in a bad light.


This is the study that actually first made me aware of the giving divide, I heard about it a while back and was surprised about the findings like the author was:

Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. And while religion is a major factor, the figures don't just show tithing to churches. Religious donors give significantly more to non-religious causes than do their secular counterparts.
The Giving Gap - Reason.com

Click to expand...

You are assuming that those who put together the first cornerstones of the Christian religion wouldn't do so around someone else if they felt they could gain power in doing so. I don't believe this. I think many Christians have good intentions. I also believe there were a lot of higher ups in the church that were more than happy to manipulate circumstances for their own power gains. If not for Christ, it is more than likely that at least some of those earlier groups would have chosen someone. It isn't inconceivable that it could have happened.

Click to expand...

I am not the one making assumptions here. You said outright that you think without Jesus there would still likely be Christmas. I said that was conjecture because it is. There are a lot of assumptions that you have to make in order to come to that conclusion and little to no fact. There were a lot of steps between those few Jews following Jesus to the 33,000+ Christian denominations we know today so to make the claim that without those same steps we would still be at the same place we are today you would have to make some pretty big assumptions especially since there were other Christ figures during that time period and they all just sort of fizzled out. In any case it doesn’t really matter we are where we are today.

And some may not have agreed with celebrating Christmas because of the Pagan holiday, but many did and did so on purpose. They saw an advantage to it.

Click to expand...

They (early Christians) didn’t celebrate Christmas. That didn’t technically come around until closer to the 11th century. That was one of the points I was trying to get across in my other posts they tried to figure out the date of birth of Jesus they made a point of celebrating his birth in different areas of the world so depending on what time period and where you were from you would be celebrating the birth of Christ at different times of the year if you were even celebrating it at all which is why it is an oversimplification to say that they simply saw an opportunity to co-opt another tradition and took it.

It is not likely that Jesus's birth would have been in either December or January. The weather and the census are two things that suggest it is not likely. It is possible, as is anything. It just honestly could have been any time during the year.

We just can't know either way, but it isnt hard to imagine that there could still be a Christmas without Jesus. But it is almost certain that there would still be holiday celebrations of some sort during this season. People had found ways to celebrate during this time of year for many centuries prior to Jesus's birth. It just doesn't take much to imagine that they would continue to celebrate something because people like to celebrate things and what better time than around the longest day of the year?

Click to expand...

Whether it was likely or not it was one of the proposed dates and not because of Saturnalia. Chronographiai placed it at December 25 more or less and it’s one of the earliest dates proposed.

You can imagine that each little step that got us from the first Christians today would have still taken place and got us to Christmas but it doesn’t serve any purpose. It’s extremely unlikely given the amount of time passed and all of the little events that had taken place. Change one thing especially something huge like the actual mangod worshipped and the sequence of events change. You honestly have no basis for the claims you make and no reason to make them. The only thing I do agree with you on is that there would still be some sort of celebration around the winter solstice, that’s something that has surpassed cultures and time. Either way though I don’t see what any of this has to do with anything.

I wouldn't interrupt other people's celebrations either. But I don't blame people who do so for something that is not their fault. No matter how much you don't like their actions, they did nothing that caused the church to not be able to put up their displays by putting up their own displays. It was something that was caused by the vandals but likely would have happened eventually anyway. But that is life, things change, people adapt. It really is probably better. Now more of the area can get "displays" for the season (hopefully with positive messages). Maybe there can be more of them with a greater level of effort put into them. With a little effort and care and less whining, they could make some pretty nice displays across the city to put up for the holidays and the park can be used for more park-like activities, such as playing in.

Click to expand...

I’m glad you wouldn’t want to interrupt someone’s 60 year old tradition of celebrating with their loved ones.

I can’t say I disagree with the rest of your post.

Somerville said:

Does anyone else see the connection between what I posted and what Grant has posted? - 'cause I sure don't

Click to expand...

You said

Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about slavery and whether was he for it or against?
In many circles, silence, when confronted with evil indicates support.

Click to expand...

You mentioned slavery but never came out against it. In many circles, according to you, that would indicate your support.

Cephus said:

No, I'm looking at what the Bible actually says instead of what it can be twisted to say by people who cannot bring themselves to stomach what it actually says. Find me a place in the New Testament where Jesus said he changed his mind and homosexuality is actually okay. Find me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus said slavery was evil. You're desperately trying to justify ignoring things when the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say.

Just read the damn book.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

I agree - read the damn(ed) book

Where in the New Testament is Jesus quoted as saying anything about homosexuality, either negative or positive?

Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about slavery and whether was he for it or against?


In many circles, silence, when confronted with evil indicates support.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

Is that your way of saying you support slavery?

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Does anyone else see the connection between what I posted and what Grant has posted? - 'cause I sure don't

Click to expand...

Grant said:

You said

Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about slavery and whether he was for it or against?
In many circles, silence, when confronted with evil indicates support.

Click to expand...

You mentioned slavery but never came out against it. In many circles, according to you, that would indicate your support.

Click to expand...

I "mentioned slavery" as it related to whether or not there are any known words from the person known as Jesus of Nazareth (if he existed or not) concerning slavery. It was a very short statement on that one matter. To attempt to conflate that with me 'supporting' slavery does seem to be a bit of a stretch, an attempt to defend one (perhaps never was) person for their failure to talk about slavery by making an accusation against me based on a rather weak attempt at comparison of statements or non-statements as it were. My one sentence is somehow to be considered equal to all of the words attributed to the man known as Jesus - interesting.